In this Discussion

As I write this here I am very aware that some forum menbers and other interested persons may well start to get nervous.

I have read the very interesting articles by Seamus Coogan at the CTKA.net website concerning attacks on "Conspiracy theorists".

I personally think that it is wrong to assume that an advocate of one particular "Conspiracy theory", eg. the Kennedy Assasination, will also, by definition, be an advocate of another "Conspiracy theory", eg. Alien Abduction and Cover-Up. I firmly believe that all such "Conspiracies" should be dealt with seperately and judged on their individual merits after full consideration of the available evidence. It is wrong to summarily accept or reject all "Conspiracy theories" on the basis of anything other than a full examination of the evidence.

Now I have said that....

I found this presentaion on You tube (in 7 (seven) parts) to be extremely interesting.

I agree that all conspiracy research should be separated. I never said they should be combined. The fact is that other forces have tried to bind them together. Its not me that's done it. In fact I've been the one whose tried to extricate JFK from this UFO's and MJ-12 shite.

Part of the reason why all so-called conspiracy theories get lumped together is because there's a perception from the 'inside' of society that each of them represents something which, if true, would overturn the settled order of things. All of us go through our daily lives making assumptions about the world. No one has access to the total picture. Those assumptions form the frame of what's real, what isn't real, what's true, what isn't true. To people who don't know better, conspiracy theories not only expose the assumptions we all have -- but the very fact that all we have are assumptions. We don't have any certain knowledge. All we have is hearsay from books, news, films, and so on. Even personal experience can be not what it seems.

Conspiracy theories are under a taboo in our culture because the culture at large senses that they represent powerful zones into which society cannot venture and still be the same. After all, if the knowledge really came out and became explicit that the assassinations of the '60s were state-sponsored events -- if that awareness were fully incorporated into our culture -- things would change right down the line. Likewise, if people were allowed to express their opinion -- in an overt way -- without the ostracizing and the taboo that UFOs represent a genuine unknown and possibly something otherworldly, the sum total of the society would change in all sorts of visible and invisible ways. People fear this, and fear the unknown generally, and beliefs become less about reasoning and more about articles of faith.

I think there's a lot of common ground between assassination research and UFO research. Mainly, the problem of the National Security State, which is where they overlap to a large extent. But I agree with you, transparent: each of these has to be taken on its own merits. Because nobody has access to the full picture, all we can do is apply the scientific method and our best reasoning skills in order to make our way.

And yes, we need to keep these various conspiracy theories separate, without falling into the trap of denying everything outside of our own area of interest just because some idiot "sceptic" is going to laugh at us. Last time I looked, ridicule was not a valid argument.